.John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life"".......... "Matthew 16: 24. Then Jesus said to his disciples:" If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow me "

Samstag, 13. Oktober 2012

After the Mormon Moment, What’s Next—the Muslim Moment?

After the Mormon Moment, What’s Next—the Muslim Moment?

The
other day, a colleague asked me if I could ever see myself voting for a
Mormon for President. What about a Muslim? My colleague and I are both
Evangelical Christians. My colleague is concerned that the LDS Church
would influence Presidential candidate Mitt Romney or another Mormon
politician’s political decisions, and so is very wary of voting for a
Mormon. No longer are we looking at candidates who are Mainline
Protestant (President Obama) or Evangelical (President Bush), Roman
Catholic (Senator Kerry or Santorum) or Jewish (Senator Lieberman). We
are now facing the Mormon Moment in politics, as Governor Romney makes
his bid for the White House. A Muslim could very well someday follow in
his or her bid for the Oval Office.I informed my colleague that as far as I am concerned the issue is not about voting for a Mormon, but which Mormon
for President. The same thing goes for Evangelical candidates. I would
not vote for any Evangelical. I have seen some political candidates call
on people to vote for them because they are Christians, or Evangelical
Christians. My question: but are they good politicians? Do they know how
to work well within their party and with other groups in an effective
way that honors the democratic process and that benefits the common good
reflected in the golden rule as articulated by Jesus: “do to others
what you would have them do to you”? (See Matthew 7:12; of course, this
statement is taken by Jesus to sum up the Law and the Prophets; in a
democracy {not a theocracy}, the Christian or the Jew or Muslim, etc.,
must make the case for their views in ways that engage those outside
their religious traditions meaningfully and persuasively, showing that
they benefit all peoples regardless of their religious convictions for
the well-being of a pluralistic society).My colleague was
concerned that the LDS church would influence the Mormon candidate if
elected President. To me, the question is not if the church influences
the Mormon candidate if elected, but how the Mormon church influences
the politician. I remember reading of how many Protestants were
concerned that if JFK were elected President he would be a puppet on a
string for the Pope. Whether we are talking about a Mormon or Catholic
or Protestant Evangelical, I want to know how the church in question
influences the politician in question. I for one wish President George
W. Bush—an Evangelical—had been more influenced by public faith
commitments arising from Evangelical churches committed to the biblical
narrative than the reigning narratives of militarism and free market
capitalism. I would have wished the same public witness for Senator
Kerry if he had been elected in place of President Bush. He saw his
faith as personal and private, as articulated during a candidate debate
with President Bush. President Bush saw his faith as personal and
public. But unfortunately, I don’t think he allowed his faith to
influence structurally his domestic and foreign policy in ways that
affirmed the common good here and abroad, including building significant
coalitions inside and outside the U.S. A gospel-centered faith that
took to heart the Sermon on the Mount may very well have influenced
President Bush to be less prone to invade Iraq (I also wish President
Obama would allow the Sermon on the Mount and related biblical texts to
influence him on his policies, including how he approaches humanitarian
aid; see my blog post “Humilitarized Aid”).
It may also have influenced President Bush to place greater checks on
markets to guard against corporate greed. While I believe President Bush
was and is a sincere man, I did not find him to be the most discerning
Christian. Greater accountability to biblical and ecclesial concerns
shaped by Christian Scripture may very well have led him to affirm the
common good even more significantly than he did.Many Christians
as well as secularists will be alarmed by my remarks, though likely for
different reasons. Many conservative Christians often vote for their own
kind of people. So, voting for a Mormon would be viewed as problematic.
Many secularists want to keep religion out of the public square. So,
calling on people to vote for people who are shaped by their religious
traditions would also be seen as problematic. In my estimation, both
sides are mistaken.To the conservative, civil religion is
changing. We are no longer under Protestant, Catholic and Jew. It is
much more diverse. It is certainly debatable that America was founded as
a Christian nation, as many conservative Christians maintain. While it
goes beyond the scope of this post, it is much more likely the case that
it was a combination of many things, including influences from
Puritanism and Deism. Regardless, to call for a cultural hegemony that
limits democratic governance to one group of religious affiliates is
problematic. Those who would say that democracy is founded on Christian
ideals must nuance the claim: which Christian ideals? Christians and
churches have supported all kinds of government over the generations.
There is not a singular view of government that the Bible affirms. In
fact, God has raised up rulers of various nations to govern empires,
Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus being two of them. The question is: how did and
do they govern?Now to limit the public domain to secular affairs
alone is equally misguided and impossible. Religion plays a significant
role in the world for good and for evil. We need to make sure we are
engaging it well and drawing from its best tenets or else we will lose
out on a vital partnership with a key player as well as create a vacuum
for less collaborative and beneficial elements of religion to thrive.
Moreover, there is nothing like a neutral and naked public square.
Secular humanism is not neutral. It is also a form of religion in my
estimation. The idea that one can limit political concerns to procedure
alone is mistaken. We need to allow the various religious communities to
engage political realities, including secular humanism, and allow the
people to vote for the candidate who they think will best promote the
common good. It is up to the respective candidates to show how their
religious and moral convictions shape them to make good decisions
befitting the common good, and for the people to seek that as well.One
Christian friend has been troubled by my reflections, believing they
open the door to Mormons gaining ground not only in American politics,
but also in American religion. In response, having an Evangelical
President in the White House has not always gained ground for
Evangelicals. On the occasion of the most outspoken Evangelical
President serving in the White House, Evangelicals faced growing
resistance nationally; we are still seeking to overcome the appearance
of promoting power politics, and failing to promote Jesus’ love and
compassion.If we Evangelicals are best known for Jesus’ love and
compassion and the pursuit of the common good, we will make the greatest
impact nationally. If we are known for voting for Presidents who we
believe will not only champion our deepest civic convictions but those
of others, too, we will then be in a position to make the Mormon Moment
or Muslim Moment that may arise later momentous for our Christian
witness.Dr. Paul Louis Metzger is the Founder and Director of
The Institute for the Theology of Culture: New Wine, New Wineskins and
Professor at Multnomah Biblical Seminary/Multnomah University. He is the
author of numerous works, including Connecting Christ: How to Discuss Jesus in a World of Diverse Paths (which
can be found wherever fine books are sold), and is a charter member of
the Evangelical Chapter of the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy.